Applying the metaphor of the Brain to organisations to identify appropriate strategies to enhance organisational learning
Author Eran Sofer
April 2007
INTRODUCTION
Our lives are organised around organisations. According to Robert Presthus we are in an age of “organisational society”, where people’s lives are generally spent in one place performing the same set of activities as part of an organisation (Morgan 2006). Because of the dominant position organisations hold, we should strive to better understand how organisations function, focussing on how they can improve their learning to enhance their capabilities.
It is useful to analyse organisations through the “lens of differing metaphors”, which helps us “see and understand organisations in new ways”. (Thomas and Allen 2006). Applying different metaphors leads to different modes of understanding organisations, which in turn suggests different strategies and frames of action for enhancing organisations (Morgan, 2006). Collectively, applying metaphors provides a “richer basis for action” than simply relying on a single organisational perspective (Thomas and Allen 2006).
This paper applies the metaphor of the human brain to the organisation to explore organisational functionality and organisational learning. Using this metaphor, the double-loop learning method is examined, and it is argued that applying this method improves organisations’ ability to learn and function effectively. Research studies are also examined to review this hypothesis.
BACKGROUND
An organisation is a social arrangement between individuals and/or groups who pursue shared goals or have common bonds. The organisation structures relationships between its members, sets or controls their activities and performance. It exists as a separate entity, differentiated from the external environment (Wikipedia).
Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines the brain as the body’s central organ in the nervous system. It regulates and controls the body’s activities, by receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and subsequently transmitting information and directions to the muscles and body in order to actuate an appropriate response to the sensory input received. The brain also accommodates human consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.
There are many similarities between the functions of an organisation and of the brain, which make the application of the brain metaphor appropriate (Morgan 2006). An organisation’s functionality rests on its ability to process information and actuate responses. Like the brain, an organisation makes decisions using the information it gathers from its environment, and subsequently communicates the decision back to the arms of the organisation to enact it. Both the organisation and the brain need effective information-processing and decision-making systems.
ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
When making and actuating decisions using the process outlined above, the brain uses memory and knowledge of past experiences. For example, as children we may have touched a hot saucepan and been painfully burnt. This memory of pain is entrenched as knowledge that we should avoid touching hot things. Accordingly, when asked to pick up a hot saucepan, we use our knowledge from our past experience, and decide to touch it with oven mitts.
Applying the brain metaphor, organisations will also function much better if they can learn from experience and retain and be able to apply this knowledge when making future decisions. Organisational Learning is the deliberate use of a learning process to constantly transform and improve the organisation (Dixon, 1999) in relation to its knowledge (Argyris and Schon, 1978, Senge, 1995). Firms develop into learning organisations when they are able to generate, incorporate, and apply knowledge (Thomas K. and Allen S. ,2006). This helps organisations develop their capacity to produce new products and services (Nevis et al., 1995), which is crucial to companies seeking to develop a competitive advantage (Bierly et al., 2000).
Organisations, like the brain, need systems that facilitate learning, in order to improve their performance. In today’s fast-paced environment, organisations need to be able to adapt and improve their abilities continually. But how is this best achieved? This paper focuses on double-loop learning (DLL), as a key learning method to achieve organisational learning.
DLL BACKGROUND: THEORY OF ACTION
In 1974 Schon and Argyris developed their “Theory of Action” regarding the difference between our actions and how we perceive them (Smith, 2001). Their premise is that humans are designing beings that they make, store and reacquire designs that enable them to perform in accordance with their governing values, and achieve their intentions (Argyris, 1995).
The Theory of Action identifies two opposing theories that guide our behaviour. Our “espoused theory”, is the set of beliefs and attitudes that we believe to be our core values, and that we espouse as guiding our behaviour. “Theories-in-use” are the beliefs and attitudes that individuals actually employ to design and implement their behaviour.
Argryis and Schon found that there is usually a significant deviation between individuals’ espoused theories and their theories-in-use. They sought to develop a technique for individuals to align their espoused theory with their theory-in-use. In effect, this means helping individuals to become aware of the actual principles (theories-in-use) that guide their behaviour. This is difficult, as they found that theories-in-use contain significant defence mechanisms to prevent the holder from recognising that their theories-in-use are different to their espoused theories. Once individuals become aware of their theories-in-use, they can begin the process of changing their theories-in-use to become aligned with their espoused theory. This level of awareness is necessary for effective double loop learning, as explained below.
SINGLE-LOOP LEARNING (SLL) – Incremental
Argyris and Schon described single-loop learning as seeking to correct problems through the lens of existing plans, values or beliefs, by improving the procedures an individual uses to achieve those goals and values. If our actions produce an unsatisfactory outcome, we change our actions to amend the outcome, as illustrated in the diagram below (Bast, 1999). Because the framework of goals and values itself is not examined or modified, individuals cannot recognise that the problems may actually be caused by flaws within their internal set of values or beliefs. Accordingly, although the problems can be corrected, the change is incremental, similar to changing a thermostat to control the room temperature (Argyris 1990). It is unlikely that meaningful learning can occur using this system. Similarly, an organisation may be able to fix errors after they happen using SLL. However, if it is unable to examine the underlying norms that led to the errors occurring, it is likely that problems will continue to appear as a consequence of the organisation’s systemic flaws.
DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING (DLL) - Reframing
Double-loop learning integrates Argris and Schon’s theory of actions. Like examining the actual theory-in-use, the DLL process involves questioning the governing variables and the underlining assumptions that led to the faulty action occurring, and modifying them if necessary (Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992), as set out in the illustration below (Bast, 1999). Individuals who are aware of their theories-in-use are much better equipped to carry out DLL (Smith, 2001).
The aim of DLL is to redesign our core patterns of thought and behaviour. This is achieved if, after performing the SLL process and correcting our error, we go one step further and ask what the recurring motives that caused our initial behaviour are. This goes hand-in-hand with identifying our theories-in-use, especially the defensive mechanisms that work as part of our theories-in-use to prevent us from becoming aware of them (Argyris, 1995). In redesigning the way we think and behave we can become less protective, more open, and gradually more aware. This is the point where individual change occurs. (Argyris 1990).
Argyris also applies the DLL process to organisations. For organisations to perform better, errors that occur should not simply be corrected, as occurs in SLL. Rather, the underlying structures in the organisation that led to the error occurring should be analysed. In this way, using the same process as described above, organisations can improve their goals, plans, values or beliefs, to improve their overall functionality. (Argyris 1990).
Triple-loop learning (TLL) - Transformational
In 1993 William Isaacs suggested that to facilitate effective organisational change, it is necessary to go beyond DLL, and introduced triple-loop learning (TLL), illustrated in the diagram below (Bast 1999). TLL is akin to “meta-learning”, investigating the context and nature of the learning process itself, and by extension, putting ourselves under the microscope. TLL involves considering why we think and act in the manner we do, and exploring underlying hidden patterns of thinking and acting that inform our frames of reference. Just as DLL goes one step further than SLL by asking us to examine the internal processes that led to the erroneous behaviour occurring, TLL goes one step further again, asking us to consider why those particular internal processes even exist, and whether there are other factors operating on a subconscious level to affect our behaviour. In an organisational context, TLL also involves examining core principles on which the organisation is set, and testing its mission, vision, market position and culture (Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992).
Utilising TLL techniques increases our awareness, helping us gain more control over the factors that affect our behaviour, which ultimately helps us to achieve our goals. By observing our language, premises, opinions, responses, and mental models that influence the way we interact, we enhance our ability to create genuinely new modes of behaviour, habits of learning, and improve our understanding of how to interact with our environment. This helps us and our organisations achieve our goals more effectively, as we become able to identify and remove barriers to our goals. Isaacs defines the purpose of TLL as “to create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness can be maintained” (1993, p.31). By using TLL techniques, individuals can learn to think and act together ways that will benefit the organisation.
DO DOUBLE & TRIPLE LOOP LEARNING WORK IN PRACTICE?
Applying the brain metaphor to organisations in order to enhance organisational learning led to the arguments set out above that double and triple loop learning techniques should be used by organisations. But do these techniques work in practice? If so, what benefits to they provide to an organisation?
Blackman and Henderson (2001) argued that organisational knowledge systems are closed, and organisational learning can only occur incrementally, not through DLL. They referred to the observations made by Levitt and March (1988), who claimed that once organisations are set in a particular routine, it is very difficult to implement change. The routines tend to perpetuate themselves, making it difficult for employees to extend beyond the ideas and processes already in place. Blackman and Henderson also refer to Walsh and Ungson (1991), who argue that it is very difficult to erase organisational memory because it is a result of a repeated action (whether appropriate/effective or not), and once the outcome has been associated with the action, it is defined and fixed as a process within the organisation. Blackman and Henderson note the self-referential nature of learning processes as a barrier to learning: the organisation will decide what it considers it needs to know, predetermining the knowledge that employees will then seek, meaning that all knowledge entering the organisation is filtered.
Blackman and Henderson argue that because the routines, filters and self-referential systems are so deeply embedded in the organisation, DLL cannot function effectively. They believe that because employees have become so entrenched within the routines and self-referential systems of learning ingrained in the organisation, employees are unable to reach the second loop of the DLL process to meaningfully analyse the framework and systems that led to an error occurring. They compare an organisation’s knowledge system with a washing machine: In order for clothes to be really clean (which represents attaining new knowledge), all previous dirt (which represents experiences) must be removed. This means that, before a cleansing rinse commences, the dirty water has to be totally drained away. If even a small amount of the previous dirty water remains (representing the ingrained, limiting systems of learning), it will spread through and taint the entire rinse (making it impossible for fresh learning to occur).
As Blackman and Henderson do not support their arguments with their own empirical research, the validity of their findings may be limited. Further, their premise that learning systems within organisations are closed suggests that individuals are also closed. This contradicts our general understanding of individuals as able to learn. Although it is clear that DLL is difficult to achieve within an organisation, arguably, if the necessary frameworks and support are instituted, it can be achieved
Turner et al (2006) use a dance analogy to analyse narrative data and “theories-in-use” in their research. The “steps” represent the restrictions confining the employees to carry out their roles, or their “choreography”, akin to SLL. “Dance” is the fluidity and flexibility that allows employees to fully express themselves and learn freely, similar to DLL. Their research hypothesis was based on Argyris’ (1999) argument that an individual’s learning is hardly ever encouraged by organisation members, and when individuals are motivated, their learning remains within the boundaries of the choreography, or the individual’s set role. Turner et al also cite Field (1997), who argues that this occurs because if employees become empowered learners then managers will experience insecurity and a sense that the organisation is unstable and uncertain.
The research was conducted in a British public sector organisation with 2,800 employees, with a sample of 12 trainees. An initial internal attitude survey showed employees were willing to be involved in a change process in order to enhance their service and working performances. As a result, training and development were given a priority in budgeting in order to develop employees’ learning capabilities. Despite their demonstrated willingness to embrace change, the research results showed that participants were not able to move from SLL to DLL. All participants indicated that they were not able either to ask questions or to challenge existing assumptions in their workplace. If they did attempt to do so, they felt their position in their workplace was weakened. Juniors questioning traditional procedures were frightened and marked by managers as trouble makers. This enabled management to keep control over the way things were performed and minimise the opportunities for change. The research supported Garavan’s (1997) point, cited by Turner et al; when individuals are restricted within their roles, they only carry out SLL, and uncomfortable with challenging management, they were unable to engage in the deeper questioning process required for DLL.
To some extent, this study supports Blackman and Henderson’s conclusions that organisations are closed learning systems. However, the study also indicates that management needs to support and engage in DLL for it to be effective. Finally, as there were only 12 participants in the study, the validity of these findings may be limited.
In his research, Ronald K. Yeo (2006) found organisations members were able to engage in DLL, to achieve a positive outcome. He researched reflective-action learning, a process whereby individuals internalise experiences of errors in order to formulate new strategies to counteract these errors in the future, which he argues incorporates DLL learning. Yeo looked specifically at the question of whether utilising reflective-action learning techniques impacts on work and organisational performance. The study examined a Singaporean higher learning institute that was being gradually transformed into a learning organisation through the use of reflective-action learning groups (RALGs). RALGs were intended to provide a specific forum for staff (the members of the organisation) to analyse teaching and learning effectiveness in order to improve their skills in these areas. Yeo relied on the premise that people act to facilitate learning, or to produce an outcome (Argyris, 1993). There were 50 participants in the study, which was based on ethnographic observations conducted over three years, and interviews.
Through interviewing the organisational members Yeo found a close relationship between DLL and members’ learning and teaching abilities. He also found that members who shifted from SLL to DLL were able to take on more responsibility, and better respond to things around them. They were able to test potential ideas, and create possible scenarios to deal with possible or likely outcomes. Members became more confident in their interpersonal skills and more creative in problem-solving.
Unlike the previous researchers analysed, Yeo’s research suggests that DLL can be achieved within an organisation. Possibly as Yeo’s study was carried out with members of a learning organisation, the members may have been more open to DLL processes, as they are engaged in learning and teaching processes on a daily basis.
Yih-Tong and Scott (2005) investigated what kinds of barriers exist to prevent knowledge transmission across all learning ranks of an organisation. They used the Delphi method, (whereby surveys are sent to a pre-elected participants, and the replies summarised, without any face to face discussion) as an empirical tool. Fourteen subjects who had all been involved in DLL at some stage of their career were chosen from seven organisations. They all had different roles, and different levels of seniority. Participants were requested to reflect on learning barriers and their impact on transferring knowledge during their DLL experiences within individual, team and organisation contexts. It was found that the most significant barrier to knowledge transfer is individuals’ behaviour and perception about future consequences. Individuals seek to maintain the comfort zone they have created. Sharing knowledge is seen as changing the environment they operate in, which could reduce their economic well-being, social status and psychological comfort zone. To prevent this shake-up from happening, they act to prevent information transferring from individuals to the team, from the team to other members of the organisation, and from management to the team. Individuals’ fear of losing ownership over knowledge was the most significant barrier. This research emphasises the need for employees to be prepared to share knowledge in order to achieve DLL.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps the hardest thing for human beings is to change our behaviour. As Blackman and Henderson (2001) claim it is almost impossible to remove our natural defense mechanisms and embrace new practices and systems of learning, whether individually or in an organisational context. This does not mean change is impossible. Research has identified major factors blocking change, which include managers being afraid of challenges to their authority (Turner et al (2006)) and employees being afraid of losing their position as a result of sharing information and Yin-Tong and Scott (2005). These blockages do not imply that organisations must necessarily be closed learning systems. These barriers could be addressed through training programs, and by engaging managers in the change process. Yeo (2006) was able to show that when organisation members are trained in a culture of teaching, DLL can occur very successfully.
Reference list
Argyris C. (1990), "Overcoming Organizational Defences: Facilitating Organizational Learning", Prentice Hall, 1990.
Argyris, C. (1991), "Teaching smart people how to learn", Harvard Business Review.
Argyris, C. (1993), “Knowledge for Action”, Jossey-Bass,
Argyris C., (1995) “Action science and organizational learning”, Journal of Managerial Psychology; Vol. 10, Issue: 6.
Argyris, C. (1999), “On Organizational Learning”, Blackwell Publishers,
Argyris, C., Schon, D. (1978), “Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective”, Addison Wesley,
Argyris, C., Schon, D. (1996), “Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice”, Addison-Wesley,
Altman Y., Iles P. (1998), “Learning, leadership, teams: corporate learning and organisational change”, Journal of Management Development; Vol. 17, Issue: 1.
Aramburu N., Sáenz J. and Rivera O., (2006), “Organizational learning, change process, and evolution of management systems: Empirical evidence from the Basque Region”, The Learning Organization; Vol. 13, Issue: 5.
Bast M. R. (1999), “Transformational change in organizations”, The Enneagram Monthly, pp. 1-4.
Beer, S. (1981), “The Brain of the Firm: The Managerial Cybernetics of Organisation”, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Bierly, P., Kessler, E., Christensen, E.W. (2000), "Organisational learning, knowledge and wisdom", Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 13 Issue: 6, pp.595-618.
Blackman D., Connelly J.,
Field, L. (1997), "Impediments to empowerment and learning within organizations", The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.149-58.
Finnegan, R. D. Galliers, Powell P., (2003), “Applying triple loop learning to planning electronic trading systems” Patrick Journal of Information Technology & People; Vol. 16, Issue: 4 pp. 461 – 483.
Flood, R., Romm, N. (1996), “Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning”, Wiley,
Georges A., Romme L., Witteloostuijn A. V., (1999) “Circular organizing and triple loop learning”, Journal of Organizational Change Management; Vol. 12, Issue: 5.
Isaacs W. (1993) "Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning," Organizational Dynamics; vol. 22, pp. 24-39.
McElroy, M.W. (1999), “Double-loop knowledge management”, IBM Knowledge Management Consulting Practice.
Morgan G. 2006, “Images of Organization”, Sage Publication, Inc.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, accessed: 19.04.07; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization
Senge, P. (1995), “The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of a Learning Organisation”, Random House, Sydney.
Smith, M. K. (2001) “Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning”, the encyclopaedia of informal education.
“The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary” (2002), Houghton Mifflin Company.
Thomas K., Allen S. (2006), “The learning organisation: a meta-analysis of themes in literature”, The Learning Organization Journal; Vol. 13, Issue: 2 pp. 123–139.
Turner J., Mavin S., Minocha S., (2006), “We will teach you the steps but you will never learn to dance”, The Learning Organization; Vol. 13, Issue: 4.
Walsh J.P. & Ungson G.R., (1991), “Organizational Memory”,
Yeo R. K. (2006), “Learning institution to learning organization: Kudos to reflective practitioners”, Journal of European Industrial Training; Vol. 30, Issue: 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment